CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mars 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. March 1998 Belziuk v. Poland - 23103/93 Judgment 25.3.1998 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-3-c Defence in person Fairness of criminal appeal proceedings: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (C) OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objections 1.   Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis Central fact giving rise to applicant’s complaint took place after Poland accepted Court’s jurisdiction. 2.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies Essence of applicant’s complaint was refusal of Regional Court to grant him leave to be present at appeal hearing to defend himself in person – domestic remedies exhausted in that respect. Conclusion : objections dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint Regional Court empowered to consider questions of both fact and law – applicant intended to contest his conviction and adduce evidence – issues to be determined by Regional Court could not properly have been examined without direct assessment of evidence given by applicant in person – applicant’s interests not represented at appeal since no counsel present on his behalf – immaterial that he chose not to be legally represented – under Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) he had right to be present at appeal and defend himself in person. Prosecutor’s submissions before Regional Court directed at having applicant’s appeal dismissed – respect for principle of equality of arms and right to adversarial proceedings required that applicant be allowed to attend hearing and contest submissions of prosecutor. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage Judgment in itself sufficient just satisfaction (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses Claim disallowed – specifications of costs claimed submitted too late – claim dismissed (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes